Clay:
>Yes, I
>agree that learning the melodies and embellishing is a great tool and
>was the way most players of old learned. However, I think it's
>instructive to note that these players didn't have much access to formal
>theory, and for the most part the tunes they were playing were pretty
>harmonically simple. Where I think this approach began to break down was
>the advent of modal tunes and tunes with more sophisticated harmonies.
>Most "by ear" players I've known have had difficulty when confronting
>these type of tunes in performance. What this doesn't take into account
>either are all the really lame players who learned (and still do) solely
>by the method you are referring to. A method does not a player make.
I definitely agree regarding the many lame diatonic players. However,
there is another point to be made here - the chord/scale approach (for the
person who asked what that means, the term refers to the idea of
associating chords with scales for improvisation - there is no such thing
as a "chord scale", at least not in any common usage), while necessary for
modal tunes, doesn't help one decide what to do with those scales. It is
still necessary at some point to develop a feel for improvisation
melodically, building tension and release independently of harmony changes,
and so forth. Otherwise, you are stuck with patterns and scales instead
of melodies. So I would say the chord/scale approach is not a replacement
for "ear" playing or whatever you want to call the approach Reed has been
recommending; it is a supplement, necessary when playing modal tunes, and
optional when playing tonal (especially diatonic) tunes. Personally, I
like the type and level of chromaticism it can bring to an otherwise
diatonic progression, but I realize it can be daunting (and completely
unnecessary) to first approach improvisation in this manner, as you allude
to later:
>The problem that I see is that too many players now START with
>learning the chord/scale stuff before they've developed their ears
>naturally by listening, transcribing, and playing.
Oren:
> My problems begun when I've decided that I want to start playing Jazz. I
> have learned most of what I know about Jazz theory from Marc's Jazz
> Primer. When I first read it, I understood the chord/scale relationship,
> but couldn't apply the theory to improvisation. The idea of a different
> scale for every chord seemed impossible to me, and pretty soon, I gave
> up the idea of ever knowing how to do it. Only after I started thinking
> of home keys, and staying on the same scale for many changes (that
> actually implied different modes of the same scale), what I played
> started making sence to my ears.
For what it's worth, I do discuss this to some extent in my Primer
(www.outsideshore.com), and indeed start out the scale section by saying
you should just learn a couple and then move on to the applications, but
compared to the amount of space the various scales get, I agree that this
more basic apporach to improvisation doesn't get the attention it deserves.
This is especially true given what I said above about chord/scale
approaches being at most a supplement to basic melodic thinking, which is
much harder to teach. I have however, been working on some materials in
this area.
Reed:
>For me, and this is just my own personal view, I'm totally bored by
>what I hear nowadays in jazz. In general it's chorus after chorus
>of scales. It's also so intellectual I have trouble relating to it.
>I don't hear any melodic ideas in the solos.
On the other hand, I personally find much of the playing by diatonic
players boring. All I ask is that you not talk of these distinctions in
terms of one way being "right" (because it is what your favorite players
do) versus "wrong" (because it leads to music you personally don't like).
--------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com
http://www.outsideshore.com/